Standing Committee D

[Mr Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

John Spellar: I beg to move,
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill the Standing Committee shall meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm; 
 (2) 18 sittings shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order specified in the Table below; 
 (4) the proceedings specified in the first column of the Table shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time specified in the second column of the Table. 
 TABLE 
 Proceedings 
 Time for conclusion of proceedings 
 Clauses 1 to 13, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1 
 5 pm at the 4th Sitting 
 Clause 14, Schedule 1, Clause 15, Schedules 2 and 3, Clause 16, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2 
 11.25 am at the 5th Sitting 
 Clause 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 to 70, Schedule 5, Clauses 71 to 74, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 3 
 11.25 am at the 11th Sitting 
 Clauses 75 to 99, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Parts 4 and 5 
 11.25 am at the 15th Sitting 
 Clause 100, Schedule 6, Clauses 101 to 106, Schedule 7, Clauses 107 to 110, remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill. 
 5 pm at the 18th Sitting 
 It is a pleasure, Mr. Hood, for the Committee to meet under your chairmanship, which I have not previously enjoyed. We look forward to the next few weeks. It is fair to say that Second Reading was conducted in a constructive and civilised atmosphere, and I am sure that that will continue in Committee. I am joined by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). He has a heavy cold, so he is likely to be a silent partner today, but we shall hear more from him in subsequent sittings. 
 The Bill is important, containing a wide and diverse set of measures, including the creation of a new independent body to investigate accidents on the railways, restructuring the body responsible for economic regulation and introducing alcohol limits for shipping and aviation. The Second Reading debate revealed wide consensus about many measures in the Bill, but even where consensus exists, it is important for new legislation to receive proper scrutiny, and I am sure that the Committee will ensure that that happens. We shall doubtless have robust debates at various stages of our consideration. 
 The proposed order of consideration is straightforward. Schedules will be considered in tandem with the clauses to which they relate and the 
 same is true of any new clauses or new schedules. The programming motion provides generous time to examine the Bill, and knives have been set to ensure that all parts are properly considered. Eighteen sittings will provide ample opportunity to reflect on the full range of issues. Given the non-contentious nature of much of the Bill, scrutiny might be completed in even fewer sittings.

Jimmy Hood: Under Standing Orders, debate on the programming motion may continue for up to 30 minutes.

John Randall: On behalf of the official Opposition, I may say that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We still have problems with the concept of programme motions, but they are a fact of life and a reality. We have every intention of continuing the tenor of the Second Reading debate, but we want to flag up the fact that insufficient time may be available to examine certain elements of the Bill. Let us hope that we can get through it without any problem.

Don Foster: On behalf of the unofficial, but effective, Opposition, may I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood? I was sorry to hear that the Under-Secretary may be silent during our deliberations this morning, and we all wish him a speedy recovery. Many of us are concerned that his presence in Committee for several weeks will deprive hon. Members of opportunities to hear him in Westminster Hall, where he performs so effectively.
 I was delighted by the Minister's approach in introducing the programming motion and kicking off our proceedings. He is right that agreement exists on both sides of the Committee in respect of many aspects of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is important to probe the details of the Government's approach and to table amendments to deal with any difficulties. That is why the programming motion is so important, providing us with sufficient time to achieve precisely that. 
 I have one question for the Minister. There is concern on both sides that much of the proposed legislation will rely on subsequent statutory instruments. Will we be able to see drafts of those instruments during the Committee? 
 I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, on what I believe to be an important Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Jimmy Hood: I remind the Committee that there are a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room.
 I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairmen and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that are reached during an afternoon sitting. 
 I should also say that I have switched off my mobile phone and that I hope that Committee members have done likewise.

Clause 1 - Meaning of ''railway'' and ''railway property''

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(1A) For the purposes of this Act ''railway property'' also includes premises owned by a railway company and occupied by an employee of a railway company.'.
 As ever, Mr. Hood, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You excelled yourself in chairing another Committee on which we both served, and I look forward to serving under your chairmanship of this one. 
 I remind the Committee of my declaration of interest on Second Reading—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may wish to spare his voice for more important matters later. I am sure that he and I will also have at least one opportunity to cross swords in an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday afternoon while the Committee continues. 
 I have interests in Eurotunnel, Railtrack, British Airways, BAE Systems, BAA, First Group and the Royal Automobile Club. My husband is an airline executive. It may help the Committee if I indicate that, apart from the RAC, none of those declarations is worthy of registration. They are not important in terms of pecuniary value, but may be of interest to the Committee. 
 I hope that the Minister and the Committee will see amendment No. 31 as a helpful way of clarifying what we see as an omission. Clause 1 transposes a number of definitions adopted under Acts of Parliament passed by Conservative Governments. We will not, therefore, go over old ground, as we remain proud of that legislation. 
 As I represent Vale of York, I know that railways are important to my constituents and to those of many other hon. Members. I therefore believe that railway property should be defined before we adopt and implement the Bill. We believe that the definition given would be sufficient for the purposes of the Act if it also included 
''premises owned by a railway company and occupied by an employee of a railway company.''
 I hope that the Minister will think that that is sufficient of itself. There may be other properties that should be included, and the Government may want a broader definition. However, we believe that a serious omission has occurred, and that that follows through into later parts of the Bill, particularly clause 7 on the investigator's powers. 
 Clause 1(2) states: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section.''
 I noticed, on another Committee on which I served, that provision of such powers seems to be part of a general trend. Does that mean that the Government may in future be minded to define what constitutes railway property in a statutory instrument? Does a railway property definition already exist? If so, it would be immensely helpful to the Committee if we were aware of it.

Don Foster: I will be particularly interested in the Minister's response, as the Government amendment to clause 2 would allow them change definitions by regulation, and they may have something in mind in that respect.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is absolutely right: it is important to understand the definition of what constitutes appropriate property. However, I have some concerns about the implications for the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. Why is it important to include the property of an employee in the definition? My understanding is that if there is a suggestion that an incident that occurred on the railway might be connected with apparatus or goods at an employee's property, the British Transport police could obtain appropriate warrants to conduct an investigation in the normal way.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman touches on one of the most sensitive parts of the Bill, and we are pre-empting a later discussion. The founding Acts of Parliament and the subsequent amendments that set up the aviation accident inspection branch and the marine accident investigation branch referred specifically to the issuing of a warrant or summons. We are worried that the Bill does not define a dwelling or a property, as that may lead to huge controversy in later clauses.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention, and I share her concern, but my understanding is that we will have a later opportunity to consider the issuing of warrants in respect of premises owned by an employee. I have difficulty in understanding the need for the definition of property in clause 1 to include reference to an employee's property. Train operating companies have premises that are not directly related to running the railway. Those premises should be excluded from the purposes of the Bill, especially in relation to the work of the British Transport police. I do not criticise the hon. Lady, but she has not explained why the definition should include employees' premises, which could be covered in respect of the British Transport police by warrant, or those parts of premises owned by a train operating company that are not directly related to running the railway. We are minded not to support the amendment.

John Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for explaining her amendment, and I hope to show that we have taken into account what it would achieve.
 The rail accident investigation branch will investigate accidents and incidents relevant to the operation of the railway. The definition of railway property is drafted to reflect the places where a railway accident or incident would occur that could be the subject of an RAIB investigation. Extending the definition would mean that the RAIB had a duty to investigate accidents in a railway station back office, for example, which are more properly the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. 
 During an investigation, RAIB inspectors will need to gain access to railway property, as well as to other 
 land or premises used in connection with the operations of the railways, if the inspector reasonably believes that they may contain evidence relevant to an accident or incident. I assure the hon. Lady that the premises of a railway company or those occupied by an employee in such circumstances could be entered using the powers in the Bill. With that assurance, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: The amendment has served its purpose in eliciting an assurance from the Minister. He has not, however, responded to all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me. The powers are more extensive than those enjoyed by other investigation boards, but the Minister has satisfied me on that.
 The amendment was also designed to establish whether the definition of what constitutes an adjoining house or property is exclusive, or whether the Minister is minded to interpret the provision more broadly along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bath, whereby certain properties would automatically be excluded. It is an important point, although we shall not press it to a vote at this stage. 
 Many aspects of the Bill are non-controversial. The hon. Member for Bath is right that implementation will be left to the British Transport police. It is in the interest of Parliament to get it right now so that we do not have to revert to the Secretary of State's right to amend by regulation. I am a Scottish lawyer, which may amount to a vested interest, but I think that it is much better to get the Bill right first time rather than depend either on court cases alleging that the power is being abused, or on the Secretary of State's right to amend through regulations. We shall not press for a Division now, but we will return to the principle later. 
 We may not want a clause stand part debate on the point, but it would be helpful to know why a tramway in Scotland is excluded from the Bill's purpose under subsection (1). I hope that the Minister will explain that in due course.

John Spellar: That question involves what matters are reserved and which devolved. It is slightly complicated by the fact that Scotland has no tramways, and I know of no proposals to change that.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Meaning of ''railway accident'' and

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No.21, in
clause 2, page 1, line 16, after 'property', insert 
 'or property adjacent to railway property'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No.1, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(1A) A serious accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of a train or rail infrastructure in which— 
 (a) a person, whether employee, passenger or third party, suffers a fatal or serious injury; or 
 (b) a train sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance or characteristics of the trains, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. 
 (1B) A non-serious accident and railway incident both mean an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly or potentially occurred.'.
 No.22, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(1A) A serious accident shall be deemed to have occurred in circumstances in which— 
 (a) the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party; or 
 (b) {**/ri**}a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property. 
 (1B) A non-serious accident and railway incident are deemed to have occurred in circumstances in which an accident nearly or potentially occurred.'.

Anne McIntosh: The purposes of amendment No. 21 are broadly similar to those of the previous amendment . It is designed to specify more tightly the definition of property, which should include reference to ''adjacent to railway property''. The items of a rail disaster would not spread out over as wide an area as the horrifying fall-out of the US shuttle—rail accidents tend to be more localised—but it would be helpful to specify that properties adjacent to railway buildings are included, which would lend further weight to the investigator's powers of investigation.
 Amendment No. 1 arose from a far-ranging and excellent debate on Second Reading, in which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke powerfully about the lack of definition in the Bill of what counts as an accident or an incident. 
 In his introduction to the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State mentioned that a degree of latitude would be given to the rail accident investigation branch in deciding which types of accident should be investigated. Members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to study the detailed briefing provided by the Royal National Institute of the Blind on the sort of accident that may not lead to a fatality or serious injury, but may still be significantly harmful to individuals. For example, someone with an eye infection or, like the Under-Secretary, with a streaming cold may be deprived of normal vision. He may be only temporarily impaired, but could easily trip over a step on accessing a platform. It would significantly reassure such a person if the Government allowed such incidents to be deemed worthy of investigation. 
 I shall leave the hon. Member for Bath to speak to his amendment, but amendment No. 22 is designed to press the argument that non-serious accidents and 
 incidents should be deemed to have occurred and be viewed as potentially significant in certain circumstances. Following the scenario through, someone tripping on the platform could roll on to the track and cause a serious accident. The amendment is designed to elicit the Minister's clarification of how far-reaching the RAIB's discretion will be. 
 The Secretary of State said on Second Reading: 
''The whole point in having a rail accident investigation branch is precisely in order to get an explanation of what happened as quickly as possible.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 766.]
 He went on to say that that was the purpose of setting up the body. We should enable the RAIB through clause 2(1) to decide precisely what type of accident should be investigated. 
 We believe that a serious accident should be deemed to have occurred where 
''the operation of a train or collision with railway property has caused a fatality or serious injury involving an individual, whether employee, passenger or third party''.
 The Potters Bar crash was the first occasion on which I saw vividly the consequences of a railway carriage collision, but only last week disaster was narrowly averted on the Central line when a railway carriage collided with a tunnel on entering a station. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that the RAIB would have been authorised to investigate those two accidents, but it would be far better if the Bill included such a definition. 
 Our amendment goes on to specify 
''a train or railway property sustains serious damage or structural failure which adversely affects the operations or the structural strength of the trains or railway property which would require a major repair or replacement of the train or closure of the railway property.''
 We believe that that is a fairly concise definition, but it would help the RAIB and the investigators if the Government said what a serious or non-serious accident or railway incident should be. 
 Again, in response to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the Secretary of State said that there would be 
''sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate.'' .''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 772.]
 I humbly submit that it is not sufficient to leave that to clause 6. We need a clear and concise definition. With the Potters Bar and Central line accidents in mind, we propose amendments Nos. 21 and 22 as probing amendments that would strengthen the Bill. Indeed, the Minister's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, pleaded with him to include a concise definition.

Don Foster: I thank the hon. Lady for her introduction to her amendments. We, too, were impressed by the compelling arguments made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. However, it is not enough to leave the issue to clause 6 on the assumption that it somehow resolves the problem. Clause 6 is clear about what the RAIB may or may not do. It states:
''The Rail Accident Investigation Branch—
(a) shall investigate any serious railway accident,
(b) may investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident, and
(c) shall investigate a non-serious railway accident or incident if required to do so by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.''
 In other words, the distinction between a serious railway accident, which the RAIB is required to investigate, and a non-serious railway accident or incident, which it might or might not investigate, is clearly important. I am delighted that the Secretary of State told us on Second Reading that the RAIB will be given a fair degree of latitude in what it investigates. Nevertheless, unless we have clear definitions of what the terms mean, it will be difficult for us to know exactly what is in the Government's mind on clause 6. 
 The Minister will rightly tell us that the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch do not have detailed definitions in their legislation, and that definitions of this sort in relation to their work are covered by regulations. However, we are again in some difficulty because we do not yet have even draft regulations to give us some idea of what is in the Minister's mind. The probing amendments are important in helping to tease out from the Government exactly what definitions they have in mind. 
 In a spirit of openness and honesty that might surprise hon. Members, I must say that I am now rather more taken with the hon. Lady's second amendment than I am with my own. She is right to refer to properties adjoining the railway, as we can all imagine several accidents or incidents that might result from, for example, an electricity power line near a railway. Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady has said, these are probing amendments intended to give us a more detailed insight into the Government's thinking. We hope that the Minister will at least tell us when we will see draft regulations. 
 Either now or during the debate on clause 6, it would be helpful to hear a little more about the Government's thinking on the degree of latitude that is to be offered to the RAIB. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the air accident investigation branch quite rightly believes that it is important to investigate potential incidents, such as near misses. We can learn a great deal from those. Similarly, on the railways there could be investigations into the sort of incidents referred to by the hon. Lady, who mentioned that the Royal National Institute of the Blind has provided information. 
 The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was on to an important point when he said that we need some clear indications about definitions. I am not too concerned whether that happens in regulations or the Bill, so long as we are given an early opportunity to know what will be in the regulations, if that is the route that is followed.

John Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Bath for explaining what the amendments seek to address. I hope to show that we have taken into account what they seek to achieve and that there would be some difficulties in including such things in the Bill at the moment.
 Amendment No. 21 would extend the remit of the RAIB beyond the railways, which the Government believe would be unnecessary. Lord Cullen recommended that the fundamental aim and objective of the RAIB should be to improve the safety of the railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents. The RAIB will establish the root causes of railway accidents and incidents and, equally importantly, will share safety lessons with the industry as quickly as possible so that safety can be improved and future accidents prevented. Of course, it is possible that an accident elsewhere might affect the operation of the railway. We see that reasonably regularly. Smoke from an office, factory or warehouse fire might blow on to a railway track and impair a train driver's visibility and might even, as we have seen, stop the train. An accident on property adjacent to the railway might involve objects falling on to the track. The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the possibility of a power line; a real example tragically occurred when a Land Rover was involved in the Selby disaster. 
 However, if such occurrences result in a railway accident, the RAIB will already have the power to investigate. It does not make sense for the RAIB to investigate the office or factory fire, although the Health and Safety Executive might undertake such investigations in order to improve safety in offices and shops and on industrial premises.

Don Foster: Let us take the example of a railway employee, working to repair the roof of a railway station, who falls and sustains injuries. If that did not have a direct impact on the running of the railway, presumably the matter would be investigated—rightly—by the Health and Safety Executive, which could bring to bear its expertise from other similar incidents. That is why definitions are important. They rule out, as well as ruling in, incidents and accidents that can be covered by the RAIB.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has helped us with his example of people falling from roofs. When I was a trade union official we conducted a campaign on the dangers of asbestos and someone wrote in to say that the union was absolutely right to undertake the campaign and that he could testify to the dangers of asbestos because when he walked across an asbestos roof he fell through and broke his leg. He suggested that people should therefore be aware that asbestos was extremely dangerous.
 I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Health and Safety Executive has the expertise to deal with such issues, which are properly within its remit. The RAIB will consider matters that have an impact on the operation of the railways. I realise that there will be grey areas in which jurisdiction will need to be considered. That is inevitable in the running of such a complex system. I hope that I have explained why we believe that amendment No. 21 is unnecessary. 
 We agree that there is a need to define what accidents the RAIB will be under a duty to investigate. 
 The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Bath referred to draft regulations. However, hon. Members will know that we have to ensure that domestic legislation complies with European legislation. The European Council and the European Parliament are currently debating a proposed railway safety directive, which will provide a framework for a consistent approach to independent accident investigation in all member states. We should all welcome that. 
 The directive will include definitions of what constitutes a serious accident and an incident. The precise definitions in the draft directive remain under discussion, but the current draft definitions are significantly different from those proposed in amendments Nos. 1 and 22. If they were accepted, we would find ourselves needing to amend primary legislation all too soon. I can assure hon. Members that we plan to set out detailed definitions in the regulations that will be published shortly after Royal Assent, but they will need to be compatible with definitions agreed at European level.

Anne McIntosh: In my prior life, I was a Member of the European Parliament. We used to take part in that sort of negotiation; I sat on a committee that did so. In that respect the European Parliament is the co-decision maker with the Council of Ministers. Can the Minister convince the Committee that the Government is being a little more proactive than he has suggested? I would like the Government to take our definition to Europe. It could be a definition of the official Opposition or the Government. Europe works best when it is offered a practical and pragmatic approach, often by Britain. I hope that the Minister will take my criticism in good heart. It is wrong that we should lie back and think of whatever Europe comes up with. We should tell it what we believe the definition should be.

John Spellar: I thought that the hon. Lady was going to suggest that we lie back and think of Europe.
 I was going to outline the current draft definition of ''serious accident'' in the railway safety directive. That specifies events that would be subject to mandatory investigation by an independent investigation body, as proposed in the Bill, in all member states. It reads as follows: 
''Serious accident means:
a) accidents caused by collision or derailment of trains, resulting in at least one killed person or five or more seriously injured persons . . . or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment and with an obvious impact on railway safety regulation or the management of safety''.
 ''Extensive damage'' means damage that can immediately be assessed by the investigating body to cost at least €2 million. 
 Given that definition, the suggested amendments are unlikely to comply fully with the forthcoming European legislation, particularly in relation to incidents resulting in environmental damage or damage to track and signalling. Such incidents would need to be covered by the definition of serious accident, which we would need to incorporate in domestic legislation. On that understanding, I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Anne McIntosh: This has been a fascinating discussion, and I realise that the hon. Member for Bath and I have made one omission. We have not considered the worst-case scenario to which the Minister alluded—environmental damage. For example, there may be a chemical spill. I would like to put the Committee's mind at rest. Hawkhills, the civil service emergency planning college, is located in the Vale of York, and help is at hand. I am sure that even as we speak, the college is considering such a scenario.

Don Foster: Bearing in mind what the hon. Lady has rightly said about our joint failure to refer to environmental damage, does she feel that the definitions introduced by the Government on the back of European legislation would cover some form of terrorist incident on a freight train carrying munitions or radioactive materials? Such an incident might not lead to a collision or a derailment, but would nevertheless be serious.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that the British Transport police, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) rightly commended highly—we all have cause to be grateful to them—are on the case as we speak. I imagine that they are. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath, and it is most generous of the Minister to share with the Committee the thinking behind the European definition. On the face of what he read out a moment ago, it seems to include additional aspects to those specified in amendments Nos. 22 and 1. On the other hand, that definition does not cover some of the points that we have raised. I humbly submit that we could return to the matter later.
 There are many definitions that one could examine. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has come up with a further definition in which an accident is specified as an occurrence connected to the operation of the train or rail infrastructure, and which is not dissimilar to the definition in amendment No. 22. The Minister must take it on board that all members on the Committee want to continue to improve this country's rail safety record. I mentioned the visually impaired. The European definition that is emerging does not in my view go far enough to satisfy the most vulnerable. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I ask the Minister to consider three scenarios and take them on board in his negotiations with his European counterparts. 
 The first is when accidents occur because the gap between the platform and the train is so large that passengers, especially the less able and the visually impaired, are not sure where the platform edge is. They may trip and be injured. The most vulnerable are often the main beneficiaries of rail transport. Many do not have their own means of transport so depend heavily on public transport. The second scenario is where accidents occur because the gap between train carriages is large enough to cause confusion and disaster. RNIB members have been in such situations. The third scenario is where people are worried about getting off the train on the wrong side and ending up on the track rather than the platform. That would probably not happen often now, because most modern 
 carriages have doors that open electronically, on one side only. 
 Against that background, I hope that the Minister will take on board our serious points. I do not know whether he wants to comment on amendment No. 21 and on whether the Government would consider a definition that included not only property but property adjacent to railway property, for the reasons that emerged in the Potters Bar incident. There, not only the tunnel was damaged but, I imagine, some adjacent property. Perhaps the Minister will take that on board.

John Spellar: I hope that I have dealt with the issues raised by amendment No. 21. Damage consequential to the accident is a slightly different matter from the causes of the accident, which is the focus of the accident investigation branch.
 I thank the hon. Lady for saying that she will not press the amendment to a vote. I hope that I can help by looking at the definition of serious accidents in the directive. There will be nothing to stop member states widening the scope of mandatory investigation in their territory, as long as it complies with the minimum scope defined in the directive. That is open to us under these provisions, and could be done by regulation. A difficulty would be created, however, if we wrote into the Bill definitions that were incompatible with the directive. We would then need to amend primary legislation, and do so quite soon.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that any such regulation would be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, providing the opportunity further to investigate and amend. Consensus is emerging in Committee, and it would be regrettable if we could not develop it further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 23 to 26. 
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 12, page 7, line 18, leave out from 'be' to end of line 19 and insert 
 'laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Anne McIntosh: Before I speak to the amendment, I want to make a point of clarification. I am moving amendment No. 19, which deals with clause 2, but is it in order to speak to clause 12? Having agreed a programme resolution, we were not expecting to take provisions out of order, but we now seem to be in the Government's hands. We are already talking about clause 12.
 As was clear on Second Reading, hon. Members are concerned about the extent to which the Government have empowered themselves to amend 
 provisions. Clause 2(2) empowers the Secretary of State, through regulation, to 
''make provision for what is to be or not to be treated as an accident or incident for the purposes of this Part''.
 I repeat that the regulations should be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. 
 I note that the Government amendments leave out reference to orders, so I presume that regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution of each House. Now would be a good opportunity for the Minister to answer the question to which he earlier failed to respond: will the regulations on what constitutes a serious accident, a less serious accident or an incident be subject to proper scrutiny? 
 Clause 12 set alarm bells ringing for Opposition Members because of the wide powers it confers on the Government to make regulations. Will the Minister explain why the Government decided to delete the reference to orders in the Bill at this early stage of proceedings? Am I right in assuming that an order is a statutory instrument? The Minister could nod his head and Hansard would enter it into the record.

John Randall: He is waiting for guidance.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps the guidance could come from a provenance that cannot be recorded, but it would be helpful to understand what constitutes a regulation and what an order. We hesitate to empower the Government. My preference is always for primary legislation, whenever possible. The Minister said that it would have been regrettable to adopt amendments Nos. 22 or 1 and have to review and repeal a part of the Bill. Would this be a good moment for the Minister to respond to my question whether a statutory instrument constitutes an order?

Jimmy Hood: Order. I can advise the hon. Lady that I shall decide who is going to speak. If the Minister wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so. It is not for her to call Members to speak.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful, Mr. Hood. My question was just for clarification.
 I repeat that it is our sincere wish—I hope that the Minister will grant us co-operation and assistance—that as much legislation as possible will be in the Bill and as little as possible left to regulation. Can he assure us that Government amendments Nos. 20 and 23 to 26 relate specifically to the definition, which would avoid the eventuality of having to be specific in the Bill, which would not sit comfortably with, and would perhaps contradict, the definition agreed at European level? In a spirit of co-operation, we have agreed a programming motion this morning. I hope that we will still be allowed to consider later in the Bill the implications of clause 12 for clauses 3 to 11. 
 Any regulations made under clause 2(2) should be kept to an absolute minimum. We seek confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case. The definition that he seeks, which he generously explored with us this morning, will at least touch on some of the points discussed under amendments Nos. 22 and 1.

John Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for explaining the issues that the amendments seek to address. As she said, the group of amendments includes four Government amendments. Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24 seek to correct typographical errors. The clause presently provides for regulations and orders created under part 1. Part 1 does not provide for any orders, and the reference to such ''orders'' should therefore be removed.

John Randall: I am interested in the concept of typographical errors that recur regularly. To my mind, a typographical error occurs only once. Perhaps the Minister could say that his Department found that it had made a mistake rather than a typographical error.

John Spellar: Typographers have to take responsibility for a number of areas under all Governments, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware.
 As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, Government amendment No. 25 changes the parliamentary procedure for regulations under clause 1(2) from negative resolution to affirmative resolution. Clause 1(2) allows the Secretary of State to amend the definition of ''railway'' or ''railway property'' by regulation. That is a Henry VIII power, allowing secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. As hon. Members may be aware, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recently recommended that Henry VIII powers should generally be exercised by affirmative resolution, and the amendment will accomplish that. Government amendment No. 26 confirms that other regulations under part 1 will be made by negative resolution. 
 The amendments are being proposed to ensure that the part of the Bill relating to the RAIB works well and that it is consistent throughout. However, the other amendments in the group would damage the smooth operation of the RAIB. 
 Amendments Nos. 32, 19 and 20 would mean that other regulations made under part 1 could be made only by affirmative resolution. The regulations for the RAIB will set out detailed working arrangements for the branch in the same way as civil aviation regulations and merchant shipping regulations. Both the equivalent air accident regulations and marine regulations are made by negative resolution. Lord Cullen recommended that the RAIB should be modelled on the aviation investigation branch. We agree, and can see no reason why the RAIB regulations should not be made in the same manner. As I have said, we intend to publish regulations soon after Royal Assent. 
 The regulations will need also to reflect the forthcoming European Union safety directive, which will place its own requirements on what accidents and incidents need to be investigated. We shall have to comply with its terms. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York will withdraw the amendment. I beg to move formally amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Jimmy Hood: Order. The Minister will have the opportunity to move those amendments formally later in the proceedings, not while we are on this clause.

John Randall: Given the Minister's assurance, can he give a further assurance that all other typographical errors have been checked and that we will not have to come back to such matters later?

John Spellar: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We always make examinations to ensure that we have the best possible legislation, and I am sure that both sides of the Committee desire that.

Anne McIntosh: As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has suggested, the question is raised of what is a typographical error and what is a mistake. I should hate to be a typographer in the Minister's Department at this time.

Don Foster: Does the hon. Lady believe that clause 103 is the result of a typographical error, or a straightforward mistake by the Government?

Anne McIntosh: I hesitate to speak for the Government, but I think that we shall have plenty to say on clause 103 when the time comes.

John Spellar: I think that the hon. Member for Bath meant a mistake by the previous Government.

Anne McIntosh: We admit to having made mistakes, although we did not make too many typographical errors.
 I have great difficulty in seeing the difference between amendment No. 20 and Government amendment No. 25. Apart from about two words, their content, drafting and aim are identical. Will the Minister see fit to withdraw amendment No. 25 and instead to accept amendment No. 20?

Jimmy Hood: Order. I should advise the hon. Lady that if she wants to be a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and invite people to withdraw amendments, she should see Mr. Speaker.

Anne McIntosh: That is an ambition beyond my wildest dreams at the present time, Mr. Hood. I shall store it away for the future. I hope that the Minister, in a spirit of generosity, will accept that the two amendments are very close.
 The Minister has inspired me with no confidence whatever in amendment No. 26. Amendments Nos. 25 and 20 seek to address the Henry VIII situation—Henry VIII was a man of many wives, and I am a lady of many dreams. Given the Minister's points on amendment No. 25, I am shocked and stunned by amendment No. 26, which opens a whole can of worms. He failed to specify precisely what other regulations the Government will want to introduce under the negative procedure. 
 The Opposition are always deeply uneasy at any reference to the negative procedure. I remember how many statutory instruments were passed in the hazy days of 1973, when I was a humble law student, studying constitutional law at Edinburgh university. If one reads a constitutional law book now, some 30 years later, one sees that the number of statutory instruments introduced, especially by negative resolution, has become unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will agree, in a spirit of compromise, to move forward by means of affirmative resolution.

John Spellar: Our amendment simply deals with the concerns expressed by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that Henry VIII powers should generally be exercised only by affirmative resolution. However, if powers under secondary legislation are not used to change primary legislation, regulations are most effectively be made by negative resolution, and we have clarified that in Government amendment No. 25.
 Amendment No. 20 would go much beyond that. As the hon. Lady rightly said, she is trying to change all procedures to affirmative resolution. Our proposal that that should be the case only for the area that we have outlined takes account of the concerns of the Lords Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I hear what the Minister is saying, but he still has not satisfied us. There is not a great deal that we can do about that at this stage, but I would like him to respond to the specific question of which issues the Government would seek to advance by means of negative resolution. We remain deeply uneasy about Government amendment No. 26, and I imagine that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will be uneasy too.

Jimmy Hood: Is the hon. Lady withdrawing her amendment or pressing for a vote?

Anne McIntosh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Establishment

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I would be grateful for clarification of your intentions. I noticed that on clauses 1 and 2 you proceeded immediately to a vote on clause stand part. As I wish to raise several points about the generality of clause 3, would you indicate whether you want me to refer to them during debates on the various amendments or whether you will allow a separate debate on clause stand part?

Jimmy Hood: I probably will allow a debate on clause stand part for clause 3, assuming that there are not long debates on the amendments. That being the case, there will be a stand part debate.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(3A) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall make an annual report of its proceedings to each House of Parliament. 
 (3B) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall present its audited annual accounts to each House of Parliament.'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in
clause 8, page 5, line 41, at end add— 
 '(6) The Secretary of State shall place a requirement upon the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents to publish an annual progress report on the implementation of recommendations which he makes.'.

Anne McIntosh: My understanding is that the present arrangements allow the Health and Safety
 Executive to publish an annual report, which is debated. It emerged very clearly on Second Reading that there is a desire among hon. Members of all parties that the work of the rail accident investigation branch should be scrutinised closely once that work has commenced. As with other bodies set up under primary legislation, we believe that the most traditional and effective method of scrutiny would be by way of an annual report of the proceedings of the rail accident investigation branch to Parliament, in which case it would be laid in the normal way before the relevant Select Committee of each House and debated. If appropriate, it could even be debated on the Floor of the House or in the confines of Westminster Hall.
 The rail accident investigation branch will have an important and, I hope, effective function in securing a perception of safety on the railways. The new branch would gain much credibility if an annual report were to be made and scrutinised by the House, particularly given that we shall later consider, notably under clause 7, what the branch's powers will be. 
 I propose that the rail accident investigation branch present its audited annual accounts to each House of Parliament. You reminded us at the outset, Mr. Hood, that the Bill carries both a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution, which is extremely important for the scrutiny of the branch's work, as the Minister said. For example, there are currently no tramways in Scotland. Not so long ago, perhaps a century ago, there were tramways in Edinburgh and other cities in Scotland. It is not inconceivable, if the Minister does not discount it, that there will be tramways in the future. 
 It emerged clearly on Second Reading that there is deep concern on the Minister's own Benches about the relationship between the reserved and devolved powers. I had an opportunity to question the Advocate-General for Scotland on this point. The most vexed issue in relation to the balance between the reserved and devolved powers lies in the field of transport. The compiling of such an annual report and an audited annual account will be an opportunity for us to explore any potential conflict between the reserved and devolved powers. 
 Most agencies set up by primary legislation report to the relevant Select Committee—in this case, the Select Committee on Transport, on which I have the honour to serve. I believe that it is highly appropriate to consider the possibility of the branch both making an annual report and presenting audited annual accounts, as amendment No. 15 seeks. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 3 will be for the hon. Member for Bath to explore. I would prefer a full annual report. I do not think that there is too much daylight between my intentions and his. I would prefer the normal mechanisms of an annual report to be presented to the Select Committee on Transport and audited accounts to be presented to the Public Accounts Committee.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the explanation of her amendment. We support it. Our own amendment does not seek to be an alternative to hers, but would add significantly to it, were both amendments to be accepted by the Government either in their current form or in a revised form.
 The hon. Lady is right to stress the need for the new body set up under clause 3, the rail accident investigation branch, to present annual reports in the way she describes. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that there is no similar requirement in legislation on two similar bodies. The aviation accident investigation branch was established under regulations made under section 75 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Those contain no reference to a requirement to produce such annual reports. The marine accident investigation branch was established under section 267 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. That also has no such reference, yet, as the Minister will point out, in both cases such reports are produced, even though there is no requirement on the bodies to do so. 
 Nevertheless, our amendment goes a stage further. It would be helpful to have a requirement for there to be such a report, but I am particularly conscious that we are establishing the rail accident investigation branch in the light of Lord Cullen's recommendations. It would be sensible to follow all his recommendations in relation to the establishment of such a body. 
 Part 2 of his report on the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, which was published in September 2001, stated: 
''I accordingly recommend that the responsibility for the investigation of accidents should be entrusted to an independent body which is set up for the purpose. The body would be similar in constitution to the AAIB and the MAIB. For convenience I will refer to it as the RAIB.''
 However, in coming to that conclusion, Lord Cullen said: 
''Against this I have to weigh the potential disadvantages, the most significant of which is the loss of direct connection between the investigator and the regular contact with the operation of safety systems.''
 Amendment No. 3 would make it possible to resolve that difficulty. Many Committee members will be aware that over many months I have been concerned that we have not had regular reports from anybody about the progress that has been made in following the recommendations made by Professor Uff and Lord Cullen. The Committee will be well aware that 33 recommendations are now long past the recommended implementation date. With the sole exception of the European railway traffic management system, we have not heard from the Government or any other body about the intentions in relation to the remaining recommendations. 
 As I have said on several occasions, I am firmly of the opinion that some of the recommendations cannot necessarily be sensibly followed. In some respects, Lord Cullen's recommendations would not improve safety on our railways. For example, there are his proposals on easier access to drivers' cabs on trains and putting roof lights on carriages, which could damage their structural integrity. Nevertheless, it is 
 important that there be clear reports on the progress that has been made on the recommendations. 
 Amendment No. 3 has two effects. First, it gives us a body that will formally report on the progress of recommendations on railway safety. Secondly, it gives that responsibility to the RAIB so that it will have that close interconnection of, as Lord Cullen puts it, 
''regular contact with the operation of safety systems.''
 The amendment would add neatly to the one moved by the hon. Member for Vale of York. The amendments would mean that we had a regular report of the RAIB's work, together with its report on how it believes other bodies have responded to its recommendations and, in particular, to the implementation of those recommendations. I hope that the Minister will accept both the hon. Lady's amendment and the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I have tabled. If he does not, I hope that he will at least give us an assurance that the Government will deal with the issues in their own wording, later in the Bill's passage.

John Randall: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York on amendment No. 15. Accidents on the railways are a matter of public interest. An annual report could be presented to Parliament, perhaps by the Select Committee that considers rail safety, and then debated, perhaps under the new arrangements whereby Select Committee reports are debated in Westminster Hall. I shall listen carefully to the Minister.
 Annual accounts will ensure not only that money is spent appropriately, but that the public can see that sufficient money is going into the important new rail accident investigation branch. I hope that the Minister will listen, and I shall listen to his response. He may be about to concede that the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have made a fair point and accept the merits of our argument that there would be great public demand for an annual report and published accounts.

Tom Brake: If the Minister is not minded to support our recommendation, what mechanism does he believe would be appropriate to ensure that there is regular reporting on the implementation of recommendations from different rail inquiries?

Andrew Murrison: I support the amendment. There is a crisis of confidence in the safety of the transport network overall, and I welcome the setting up of the rail accident investigation branch because it is a way of restoring public confidence. However, it will only be any good if it is well publicised. Publication of an annual report would do just that. We have recently seen a shift from rail to road when there has been a tragedy and it is important that the public have confidence in the rail system and its safety. I believe that publication of annual accounts and an annual report would go some way towards increasing public confidence in the RAIB and our rail system.

John Spellar: I am grateful to hon. Members for explaining the amendments and the number of people
 who support them. That may be because they anticipated my response, but they may be pleased and surprised to hear that we have considerable sympathy with some of their arguments.
 The Committee will know that the Office of the Rail Regulator is currently consulting on licence modification proposals, so that standards set by the proposed rail safety and standards board will be complied with. It will be an industry-led body that will maintain a single record of recommendations made by the rail accident investigation branch as well as industry investigation recommendations, so that the state of the industry's progress towards implementation of each and every recommendation can be checked.

Don Foster: The Minister rightly says that the rail regulator is currently consulting on the proposal. It is also known that he believes that the body could be established within the next couple of months. Can the Minister give a clear indication—he did not do so when I asked the same question on Second Reading—that the Government fully support the establishment of such a body and of when they believe such a body will be established?

John Spellar: It is always difficult to set exact timetables for such matters, but we certainly support the efforts of the rail regulator in that context.
 It must be right that the industry is responsible for the implementation of safety recommendations made by the RAIB, but we see merit in the RAIB reporting on the industry's actions. It will want to see that its safety recommendations are acted on, that lessons are learned and that it receives wider publicity. 
 The aviation accident investigation branch shares that desire. There is no statutory requirement for it to publish an annual report, as the hon. Member for Bath said, but it and the Civil Aviation Authority publish such reports setting out all undertakings or authorities to which an AAIB safety recommendation is directed, and details of the measures taken to implement the recommendation. It is not required by legislation, but it does close the feedback loop as far as safety action is concerned. It places a discipline on everyone involved to ensure that safety action is properly undertaken.

Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

John Spellar: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for a moment because his point might be answered in my next paragraph?
 Amendment No. 3 and the first paragraph of amendment No. 15 are clearly aimed at reporting. I should like to look at the wording, with particular reference to draft European legislation. On that basis, I am happy to reflect on the matter to see whether we can produce a suitably drafted amendment at a later stage.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister both for giving way and for what he went on to say. In the light of his remark, I may be prepared to withdraw my amendment. For accuracy on the record, however, will he confirm that the AAIB does not produce a report in conjunction with the CAA because the CAA report is
 produced in conjunction with the Department for Transport? Although the AAIB feeds into the report, it is nevertheless a CAA report. Is the Minister minded to have the RAIB making the amendments, which I have proposed, or should another body make the report on implementation and recommendations?

John Spellar: I will need to reflect on that point, but the RAIB is likely to be responsible. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the CAA produces the report in conjunction with the Department for Transport, but the AAIB is part of the Department for Transport, as the RAIB will be. To some extent, we may have got into a semantic difficulty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York understand that we are taking their points on board to look at the best mechanism for publishing the annual report of the RAIB, but we want to look at possible European legislation in order to achieve a form of words sufficiently robust to bring to Committee at a later stage.

John Randall: If the Minister is considering that there may be an opportunity for that requirement to go on to the face of the Bill at a later stage—the amendment will presumably be typographically pure—does he think, since the Bill covers not only railways but transport safety, that there would be any merit in putting a similar statutory requirement on the AAIB? Having said that there is no statutory requirement on the AAIB, does he think that it would be a good idea?

John Spellar: The current procedures seem perfectly satisfactory not only to the aviation industry but to passengers and others concerned with the issues. In many ways, they form the model for the creation of the RAIB. However, I take on board the points regarding the RAIB, which should have a procedure for publishing its reports and progress. We will certainly look at how we can incorporate such a procedure.
 We do not look on the second paragraph of amendment No. 15 with such favour because it is out of step with existing arrangements for the other departmental investigation branches—the AAIB and the maritime accident investigation branch. The RAIB will, of course, be a branch of the Department. The departmental annual report covers the AAIB and the MAIB, and will cover the RAIB in future. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: This has been an illuminating discussion and came as close as we have been to a positive assurance, rather than sympathy, that the Government are ready to take on, at least in part, one of the official Opposition's amendments.
 I shall first respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Bath. From his explanation, I can see what he is trying to achieve, although I do not believe that an annual progress report is the right vehicle. I am also concerned that in almost every discussion that we have had in the Select Committee or on the Floor of the House about the safety of the railways, anxiety has 
 been expressed about the increasing fragmentation of the railways. I note the hon. Gentleman's comments and the Minister's response about the establishment of the rail safety and standards board. It prompts the question, which casts a shadow and doubt in my mind, about why we are having a separate board. I would feel more comfortable if the rail accident investigation branch were given the responsibility of setting and implementing standards.

Don Foster: I confess that I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that she wants a single body both to set and monitor standards, given Lord Cullen's firm recommendation that the two tasks should be separated. I have thought long and hard about the issue and, on reflection, I believe that he is right. The proposals for a body to set standards and a separate independent RAIB are correct. Will the hon. Lady reflect on what she has said?

Anne McIntosh: I hesitate about the fact that we will have another body. We already have the Strategic Rail Authority, and will have the Office of the Rail Regulator—to replace the rail regulator himself—and the rail standards safety board. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am putting down a marker that we shall monitor the development of new bodies closely. I thought it appropriate to place that on the record. We do not believe that amendment No. 3 would provide the right vehicle.
 I was delighted when the Minister voiced some positive notes about the first part of amendment No. 15, and we reserve the right to return to it on Report. I have sympathy with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that an annual report should be included as a statutory requirement in the three relevant pieces of proposed legislation—the Bill, and the forthcoming Bills on aviation and marine inspection. Each body should be required by statute to make an annual report, which should be debated either by the relevant Select Committee or on the Floor of the House. 
 I note with some disappointment that the Minister did not accept even the spirit of the second part of amendment No. 15. The Government devote several pages of each of their annual reports to the monitoring of the public service agreements that have been entered into by each relevant body. I note that, in connection with the police, the Bill provides for a specific public service agreement into which the Government intend the British Transport police to enter. By definition there is an omission, as the Government have not invited the rail accident investigation branch to enter into such a public service agreement. There must be good reasons for that, which we can explore later. 
 I am delighted that the Minister responded so positively to amendment No. 15. We will persist with it at a later stage and will hold him to his verbal assurance, which is now on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No.29, in
clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(5) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be constituted with regard to regional representation, including the Scottish 
Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
 I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) in his place. He spoke most eloquently on Second Reading: 
''There is specific mention of the need for Scotland, Wales and the various English regions to at least be represented. I shall be looking at how that can be done. Would individuals each have a remit to represent the views of a region, or would that representation be drawn from the experiences of the people appointed to the board? That can be discussed in Committee.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 803.]
 The moment has come.

David Cairns: The moment has not quite come. I was referring to the regulator and the board that will replace it, not the rail accident investigation branch.

Anne McIntosh: I am interested to hear that. I am sure that we have time to transpose an amendment to deal with the provisions relating to the rail regulator.
 For the reasons I gave earlier, we are concerned with the aspects of reserved and devolved powers alluded to earlier by the Minister. That is the most vexing question concerning regional representation in the Bill. In the spirit of openness and co-operation, and to ensure smooth passage of the Bill, we would like the rail investigation branch to be constituted with regard to regional representation, which the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see only for the rail regulator. We would like representation from, or formal consultation of, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps the Minister could explain the precise constitution of the rail accident investigation branch and what formal consultation there will be with the three devolved powers.

Tom Brake: We support the measure, and have tabled a similar amendment.

David Cairns: The hon. Member for Vale of York was kind to draw attention to my remarks on Second Reading. I share the general concern—if that is not too strong a word—about getting the matter right. The issue of transport crosses the boundaries of the devolution settlement. It is not by any stretch of the imagination unique in that. Many issues cross the boundaries of devolution, but because we are dealing with safety and risk to human life, the area under discussion is more important than any other.
 I am slightly puzzled as to why the amendment is much more specific than the one tabled by the hon. Lady and her colleagues in relation to the Office of the Rail Regulator, which simply speaks of the need to ensure regional representation. If she were to table that amendment to this clause, I might be minded to encourage the Government to accept it. However, what has been tabled is a specific and highly inappropriate amendment to a provision dealing with the investigatory branch. 
 My reading of the amendment is that it would require Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to be rail investigators. Enormously talented though those 
 individuals are, I do not imagine that they have the expertise to go around—

Don Foster: They are not all wonderful.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman must name names. Perhaps he is speaking about his own Members. I have an enormous regard for Ross Finnie, so perhaps that is who he has in mind.
 It is simply inappropriate for Members of the Scottish Parliament to be members of the rail accident investigation branch. I cannot believe that that was the amendment's intention. Perhaps it was tabled inadvertently and should have referred to the Office of the Rail Regulator. The hon. Member for Vale of York perhaps hinted at that in her speech. I urge the Government not to accept the amendment. 
 Of course, it is entirely right for us to be sensitive to the devolved bodies, but let us imagine that there has been a very bad crash in England or Wales. We know that there would be 10 investigators. Would a Member of the Scottish Parliament come down to investigate it? Or would a Member of the Welsh Assembly come here to do the same? Would such people investigate crashes only in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? The amendment is something of a dog's breakfast, and I hope that it is rejected.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister not responding?

John Spellar: I thought that after that eloquent demolition of the amendment, the hon. Lady would want to intervene rapidly to avoid further embarrassment.
 I merely reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. The amendment would probably be contrary to civil service procedures and employment law. I am sure that the hon. Lady will concede that the Opposition have probably made a typographical error and will wish to withdraw her mistake.

John Randall: I hear what the Minister says. Does he have sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde that the amendment might be acceptable if it were worded differently and referred simply to representation that further involves the regions? When we come to that later, will he support it?

John Spellar: There are two different issues there. We are looking at employed civil servants and whether we should put geographical requirements on the employment of inspectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde pointed out, a further issue is that the amendment appears to suggest that the inspectors would have to be drawn from the Scottish Parliament. There might then be conflicts of interest relating to office of profit under the Crown. They would have to resign from the Parliament to take up that position.
 The amendment is defective. We are talking not about a board, but about actual inspectors. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Member for Vale of York will wish to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I am satisfied that the probing amendment has served its purpose. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has indicated his early support for the principle contained in the amendment. If ''regional consultation'' were substituted for ''regional representation'', the Minister might be inclined to support the amendment.
 In the clause stand part debate, we can elucidate one of the amendment's purposes—to explore how thin the Government's proposals are for the establishment of the branch. We are sensitive to issues raised by various hon. Members on Second Reading. Matters remain to be resolved, and the official Opposition are happy to take them head on to try to resolve them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: The stand part debate provides an opportunity to raise several issues on the establishment of the RAIB that have not been discussed under the amendments. In particular, I seek greater clarification from the Minister on its size. On Second Reading, I referred to the proportion of accidents and incidents investigated by the existing body, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, and pointed out that it has about double the number of staff assumed to be employed by the RAIB.[Mr. Michael Clapham in the Chair]

[Mr. Michael Clapham in the Chair]
 The excellent briefing from the Library on the establishment of the RAIB suggests that about 10 investigators are likely to be appointed. The clause deals with the Secretary of State's power to appoint investigators and make one of them the chief inspector. The Library briefing suggests that on the customary ratio of support staff to professionals, 10 investigators are likely to be supported by eight employees. Annual total costs are estimated at £1.4 million, with staff costs of about £1 million and the rest taken up by running and other costs. 
 I welcome you, Mr. Clapham, to the Chair. Will the Minister tell us whether the estimates by the Library are correct? What are the Government's own estimates of the running costs of the RAIB? On Second Reading, I asked about the support services—for example, laboratory space for conducting forensic investigations—that could be made available to the RAIB. Can some laboratories be used for that purpose and, if so, how hefty would the charge be? In his response, I hope that the Minister can clarify what size of establishment the Government envisage, and whether the Library's assessment of staff and running costs is correct.

Anne McIntosh: I, too, welcome you, Mr. Clapham, to the Chair.
 We are worried about the omissions of the size and budget of the rail accident investigation branch. I recall serving my apprenticeship on the Committee considering the Bill that set up Ofcom. It was much more specific about what Ofcom would be like. The main concern of the official Opposition is the number 
 of inspectors appointed. In a worst-case scenario, where more than one incident may be ongoing at any particular time, 10 inspectors may be insufficient to carry out all the necessary work. It is another example of where the clause should be more specific about who the inspectors will be.

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]
 The Secretary of State was quite specific on Second Reading that the main justification in the Cullen report for establishing a rail accident investigation branch was ensuring a speedy investigation that reached a swift conclusion. It would be regrettable if, through the failure to appoint sufficient inspectors, that objective were called into question. It would be helpful to know more about the roles of the inspectors and the investigators and how they tie together. The Cullen inquiry was specific about the branch's work. Without the branch being too unwieldy, in a worst-case scenario of more than one investigation going on at a time, the inspectors should be sufficient in number. 
 Clause 3(4) states that the inspector of rail accidents 
''shall carry out such of the functions of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch as may be assigned to him by the Chief Inspector''.
 We believe that the Bill should be more specific.

Andrew Murrison: The key to this is the chief inspector. Everything else falls from him. He sets the tasking for the inspectors and it appears that he is set to be a significant individual in rail safety. It follows that the terms of reference and description of the chief inspector need to be more clearly laid out in the Bill. What manner of individual is he to be: is he to be an executive, a career civil servant, or a safety professional, for example, recruited from the Health and Safety Executive? It would give us a better feel for how the body is to be formulated and how it is to work if we were given a clearer idea of who the chief inspector is to be. That would be an important provision in the Bill.

John Spellar: I point out that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate and Health and Safety Executive staff numbers cover rail safety work other than accident investigation. The hon. Member for the Vale of York made a comparison with Ofcom. Of course, there we are dealing with a separate statutory body as opposed to an accident investigation branch that, like the other branches, is part of the Department for Transport. We therefore have made an estimate as to the numbers likely to be involved and the estimated cost of averaging out likely salary levels.
 The chief inspector will be able to call in external assistance. We may come to that issue on subsequent amendments. In terms of flexibility, we would not want a branch that was staffed up to deal with every eventuality. It could be dealt with flexibly by external assistance under the guidance of the chief inspector.

Anne McIntosh: Can the right hon. Gentleman pause for a moment and tell us what the chain of command would be with regard to any external assistance for the purposes of clause 3? We took evidence on Railtrack, which largely contracted out
 maintenance. With hindsight, it appeared to break down dramatically where there was not deemed to be a sufficient chain of command and control. It would satisfy the Committee a great deal to know what that chain is to be. The Secretary of State said loosely on Second Reading, without going into too much detail, that external systems would be called on.

John Spellar: I think that it is clear from the Bill that the chain of command is to be the chief inspector. That is why one of the inspectors is designated that role. In response to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), a chief inspector is currently being recruited and we hope that an individual will be in post by spring or summer who will bring the necessary capabilities to that role.
 A question was raised about the Health and Safety Executive and other bodies being used by the RAIB. It would be able to use them, paying the appropriate commercial rate for inter-departmental transactions. I hope that I have dealt with a number of points that were made.

Don Foster: I still seek greater clarification as to the size of the body. The Minister will be aware that HMRI has between 19 and 28 inspectors notionally available in any one week. We are advised that the RAIB will have 10 inspectors, yet HMRI investigates only a very small number of rail incidents. Although we have not yet had a full definition of what an incident is, for the benefit of intelligence gathering, it would be helpful for the body to have more inspectors than HMRI does. We have a body that is half the size of HMRI. It will, I hope, do more than HMRI can.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that point. HMRI covers a wider remit, which is why one cannot draw an exact comparison between HMRI and the RAIB. With that in mind, I hope that hon. Members will feel free to support the clause.

Anne McIntosh: My point is not dissimilar to that of the hon. Member for Bath. The specific scenario that concerns us is that more than one accident or incident may be being investigated at any one time. It is incumbent on the Minister to let the Committee know a ballpark figure for how many inspectors the Government have in mind.

John Spellar: The possible structure would be of a chief inspector, a deputy chief inspector, two principal inspectors, 10 inspectors and nine support staff—23 in aggregate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - General aims

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No.7, in
clause 4, page 2, line 25, leave out 'the desirability' and insert 'its objectives'.
 The amendment is intended to firm up the Government's objectives for the rail accident investigation branch. The clause says that the RAIB 
''shall have regard to the desirability of—
(a) improving the safety of railways, and
(b) preventing railway accidents''
 That sounds extremely vague, which I am sure is not the Government's intention. No doubt the Minister will explain why it is not vague. Our amendment would ensure that the functions and the objectives of the RAIB were much clearer. That is why we would like to see the above provisions defined as objectives. 
 That would receive the support of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which has drawn a comparison between the sole objective given to the air accident investigation branch, and the much looser terminology associated with the RAIB. I hope that the Minister will explain why he feels that the vagueness of wording is appropriate. Following on from our discussion on the need to report back on progress and implementation of recommendations, I hope that the Minister might comment on whether the general aims could be expanded to include some of the reporting points mentioned, even if he accepts the objectives but leaves the wording as it stands. 
 In conclusion, the purpose of our amendment is to firm up the responsibilities and role of the RAIB. I hope that the Minister will be able to support it.

John Randall: I find myself in the strange position of thinking that the Liberal Democrat amendment has a great deal of merit. For them to put a bit of backbone into something is rather remarkable.
 ''Desirability'' does not mean much. To put it in personal terms, I recognise the desirability of losing weight, but my wife might say that it is not one of my objectives. With that example in mind, keeping desirability in the clause makes it meaningless. We all agree that the objective of the RAIB should be to improve the safety of railways, but it not just a matter of desirability. It must be a firm objective. For that reason, I support the Liberal Democrats on this occasion.

John Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for explaining what his amendment seeks to address, and I am interested in the new alliance that is forming on the other side of the Room.
 At first glance, I had some sympathy with the amendment, but there is a difficulty. As we will see under clause 5, the RAIB will need or wish to be able to offer assistance and operate wherever there is a call for it to do so, much as the AAIB does now; for example, that would be the case on the border with the Republic of Ireland or in the Channel tunnel. Such assistance may not be a matter connected with the safety of railways as defined in the Bill, which extends only to the United Kingdom. Equally, such assistance may not be connected with railways but may be, for example, to assist marine inspectors with their investigation techniques. The proposed amendment could prevent the RAIB from providing such assistance. 
 However, I offer to reflect further on the matter to see whether there is a way to incorporate the valid points that have been made.

Tom Brake: Given that the Minister has indicated that he is somewhat sympathetic and is willing to review the matter, perhaps he would consider a slight change to the wording of the amendment, from ''its objectives'' to ''its main objectives''. That would somewhat widen the scope, if the Minister thinks that that is required.

John Spellar: I will certainly reflect on that suggestion and bring it to the Committee if it can be incorporated.

John Randall: As we are offering suggestions, I wonder whether it would be possible simply to delete ''the desirability of'' so that the RAIB shall have regard to
''(a) improving the safety of railways, and
(b) preventing railway accidents and railway incidents.''
 That is just a thought. I am not an expert but I want to be helpful.

Tom Brake: On the basis that the Minister has openly said that he is willing to reconsider the wording of the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
clause 4, page 2, line 27, at end add— 
 '(2) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be consulted on the establishment of any statutory body established for the purposes of setting standards for the safety of railways.'.
 Amendment No. 30 explores the specific relationship between the RAIB and the proposed railway safety and standards board. The board may be in place before the RAIB, but the thrust and the philosophy behind amendment No. 30 is to explore the Government's thinking on their relationship. The amendment states that the branch 
''shall be consulted on the establishment of any statutory body established for the purposes of setting standards for the safety of the railways.''
 Presumably, the Minister will confirm that the railway safety and standards board will be similar to the RAIB, as an agency falling under the auspices of the Department. It would be helpful to know the interrelationship between the two. The rail accident investigation branch, whose two main purposes are to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents, will have a view about not only the desirability of any safety standards, but the practicality of the standards and the chances of their being physically implemented. The inspectors appointed under clause 4 will have that job. We await the Government's response. 
 We face a great omission in the Bill because, other than two minor references, there is no mention of road safety. As has been said, there will be three separate investigation branches—one each for rail, air and maritime activities—and we believe that it is important 
 for the consideration of accidents, deaths and injuries in all modes of transport to be transparent. We hope not to lose sight of that, bearing in mind the large omission of roads from the Bill. 
 The amendment is probing, and I hope that the Government will satisfy our curiosity. We want to explore the precise relationship between the rail safety and standards board and the rail accident investigation branch, and clarification would be most helpful.

Tom Brake: I understand the hon. Lady's comments and the purpose of the amendment. However, I cannot foresee circumstances in which the RAIB would not be consulted about the establishment of such a body, so I am not convinced of the need for it to appear in the Bill.

John Spellar: There might be a problem with timing, as the Committee will know that the Office of the Rail Regulator is currently consulting on licence modification, which will ensure that standards set by the RSSB are maintained. The rail regulator hopes that the RSSB will be established in April, which I anticipate will be before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
 While we aim for transparency among different bodies, we must be clear about their roles, which is probably the purpose behind the amendment from the hon. Member for Vale of York. As Lord Cullen recommended, the aim of the RAIB will be to determine the root causes of accidents so that safety lessons can be learned, improving safety through the industry and preventing future railway accidents and incidents. However, it will not be the safety authority. Responsibility for that will remain with the Health and Safety Executive, which, like the RAIB, will work closely with the industry's safety body, the RSSB. It will not be part of the Department but a body that sets safety standards for the industry and ensures that they are followed. It is important that there is a transparent interrelationship and clear communication between the bodies, but it is equally important that they maintain their separate and particular roles.

Anne McIntosh: I have just a short question. The Minister made it clear that the RSSB will be a body for the industry. Am I right in understanding that the RSSB will report to the ORR, not his Department? If so, what scrutiny will there be of the RSSB in this place?

Jimmy Hood: May I take this opportunity to invite Members to assume that the poor souls who will read this debate in the future will have to cope with the acronyms without any explanation? The Minister may want to want to join the ranks of those poor souls.

Anne McIntosh: I was trying to be brief, Mr. Hood. The Minister has confirmed that the railway safety and standards board will set the standards of safety for industry. If I have understood the Minister correctly, it will report to the Office of the Rail Regulator. It will therefore be independent of his Department. What opportunity will we have to scrutinise the work of the RSSB?

Jimmy Hood: I am sure that the Minister understood that question.

John Spellar: I did indeed, and I am fascinated by the prospect of the record of the Committee's proceedings being a bestseller that is widely read by future generations in the classics section of libraries. That reminds me of my previous incarnation in the Ministry of Defence when our good friend, George Robertson, said at his first meeting with the Chief of Defence Staff that one of his objectives was to try to do away with the use of acronyms in the Department. The then Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, leant forward and said, ''I think that you'll find solving Bosnia will be easier, Secretary of State.'' We will try, as always, to follow the injunctions from the Chair.
 It is important to stress that the statutory safety body for the railway industry is, and remains, the Health and Safety Executive. The railway safety and standards board, as we must now call it, will be an industry body that drives up safety standards in the industry. The Health and Safety Executive is the statutory body that is answerable to Parliament. These are important distinctions as they relate to the roles of the various bodies, to which the hon. Member for Bath alluded.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for your patience in allowing me to give the acronym its full title, Mr. Hood.
 I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I must voice some disappointment. The railway safety and standards board will have the important task of driving up standards for the industry, as the hon. Member for Bath said and as the Minister confirmed. Rather than just reporting to the Office of the Rail Regulator, it would be more appropriate for that body to have the opportunity to have its work inspected and scrutinised by hon. Members. I do not want to press the amendment to the vote, but I would like the opportunity to return to these points at a later date. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I would like to request a debate on clause 5 stand part after we discuss amendments Nos. 14 and 8.

Jimmy Hood: The hon. Lady may request anything that she likes when we come to that part. However, we are about to vote on clause 4 stand part.
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Assistance to others

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 5, page 2, line 29, after 'arrange', insert 
 'with written consent from the Secretary of State'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in
clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end add— 
 '(2) The Secretary of State will provide the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents with directions and guidance relating to the occasions on which assistance may be given as described in subsection (1) above.'.

Don Foster: The clause is relatively uncontentious. We wait with interest to see what issues the hon. Member for Vale of York wants to debate other than those covered by the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The clause says:
''The Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents may arrange for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to assist any person; in particular assistance—
(a) may be provided with or without charge;
(b) may be provided inside or outside the United Kingdom.''
 The title of the clause is interesting because it states that the body may provide assistance to others. There was much debate on Second Reading about the merits of the rail accident investigation branch examining incidents on the railway even if there had been no fatalities or serious injuries. The argument in favour was that the new body would gain a great deal of intelligence in so doing, and that that would be of assistance to it in doing its work. It logically follows that if the rail accident investigation branch were to work with, for example, the air accident investigation branch or the marine accident investigation branch, it would also learn techniques that would be of benefit to it in achieving its general aims as stated in clause 4. The Committee should see the benefit of the rail accident investigation branch involving itself more widely to gain intelligence, to learn new techniques and to practise those techniques in situations that might not occur on the railways in the foreseeable future. 
 However, clause 5 provides for the possibility that the rail accident investigation branch's services may be provided ''with or without charge.'' The implication is that the work would be carried out primarily for the benefit of another organisation. That might conflict with the general aims stated in clause 4. Given the possibility of the rail accident investigation branch involving itself with the activities of other bodies primarily for those other bodies' benefit and for charge, clarity as to the circumstances in which that might happen is important. 
 I have already alluded to my concern, shared by other hon. Members, about the relatively small size of this new organisation. I am delighted to hear from the Minister that it will be slightly larger than some people were led to believe. Nevertheless, there is concern about the limited size and budget of the rail accident investigation branch, and about the constraints under which it will therefore operate. It would be worrying if those constraints forced it to undertake paid consultancy work elsewhere. That could lead to all sorts of problems. 
 The Minister may say that that is a fatuous thought, and that that situation could not possibly arise. However, a similar situation arose when the Office for Standards in Education was set up. The Minister will be aware of that because many Government Members share my concern about the matter. The Office for Standards in Education was set up primarily to conduct inspections of schools across the country. As a consequence, many local authority advisers whose work until then had been to give advice to local schools found themselves undertaking inspections on behalf of the Office for Standards in 
 Education as a way of bringing money into their local authorities. I hope that the Committee are impressed that I have not used a single acronym so far in this debate. 
 There is a concern that, in the same way as local authority advisers are distracted from doing their work in helping local schools because they are earning money working for the Office for Standards in Education, the rail accident investigation branch, especially if its finances are constrained, might begin to do paid work for other bodies. 
 The purpose of amendments Nos. 14 and 8 is to ensure that some limit is imposed on the rail accident investigation branch. I am no great fan of regulation or of giving additional powers to the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Committee is well aware of that and therefore finds it slightly odd that my two amendments give additional powers to the Secretary of State and add to the regulations that will emerge from the Bill. Lest the Minister should jump up to raise that point, I have raised it for him. On this occasion, there is merit in doing things in such ways. 
 I am concerned to ensure that there is much greater clarity about the scope of the outside work that may be carried out by the new body. However, I am also concerned because the heading of the clause does not indicate that such work is not primarily of direct benefit to the new body or in meeting the general aims stated in clause 4. The Minister may want to assure me that there will be some constraint on such work and that the RAIB will be a professional body—I am sure that it will—and would not dream of doing things that lead away from its general aims. I have already given one example—no doubt there are others—of how such things can happen if we are not careful.

Andrew Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nature of the work that the RAIB is conducting, and whether it is paid, would be reasonable things to include in the annual report, about which the Minister was so positive earlier?

Don Foster: I absolutely agree, but I suspect that that would give us the opportunity to be critical after the event and would not necessarily mean that procedures were in place to ensure that the important work that the RAIB is to carry out is not deflected in directions that might not help to achieve its general aims.

Tom Brake: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it is important that the RAIB has the priorities for its work load set out very clearly. It should not be allowed to move away from its core business to take up paid work.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and, of course, all that would have been helped had there been greater clarity about the body's aims and objectives in the debate on the previous clause. This is an opportunity for the Minister to ensure that there is greater clarity about such aspects of the work of the RAIB. Notwithstanding the fact that he, like me, does not like giving additional powers to the Secretary of State or making additional regulations, I hope that on
 this occasion he will move in the direction of the proposals.

Anne McIntosh: Although I have listened to the hon. Member for Bath and read his amendments with great interest, I am not convinced that they add much value. Amendment No. 8 states that the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to
''provide the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents with directions and guidance relating to the occasions on which assistance may be given''.
 In recent history, a previous Secretary of State gave very specific directions that were contrary to how a rail regulator wished to behave. It is not opportune to give the Secretary of State powers of direction in any circumstances, and I would be loath to acquiesce in that. I am not persuaded that written consent from the Secretary of State is required.

John Randall: Those who prophesied that my alliance with the Liberal Democrats would be fragile were correct; I am afraid that it is now at an end. The amendment is completely unnecessary. I feel rather sorry for the Secretary of State, who has quite a lot on his plate. The transport system is not exactly excelling itself. To burden the poor chap with writing notes to give permission for such things seems a little over the top. Perhaps it shows that the Liberal Democrats are a little more cynical than I would have thought about the way in which they regard public servants. I hope that the Government will take a similar view and, if the Liberal Democrats insist on pressing their amendment, perhaps I could urge Labour Members to join my colleagues and me in rejecting it.

John Spellar: The hon. Member for Bath thought that I might be surprised that the Liberal Democrats were trying to sit on both sides of the fence. I was slightly concerned at the over-centralisation suggested, but was waiting to hear that local decisions must be made by local people. In the end, we did not hear that cliché.
 I want to put the situation in context. The RAIB is to follow the well-established precedent of the aviation and maritime accident boards. The rail accident investigation branch will be independent of Government direction. We expect that the chief inspector will have significant management experience and knowledge that can be drawn upon to determine when it would be appropriate to offer assistance to third parties, but his prime regard will be rail safety in the United Kingdom. He will be best placed to determine on case by case whether his organisation has resources available to assist with another investigation or matter. The Secretary of State is not consulted on the day-to-day operation of the aviation and maritime accident boards, and we see no reason why the RAIB should be treated differently. 
 At the moment, the aviation accident investigation branch is assisting the Turkish authorities in their investigation of a crash in Turkey in which some 75 people died. We have the experience to assist wider transport communities, and we can also learn from other countries. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Don Foster: It will be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I think that I am getting into the swing of things and knowing when it is a good time to catch your eye, Mr. Hood.
 I want to draw the Minister's attention to an omission to which I alluded earlier. The annual reports of most organisations that fall within the remit of the Department for Transport include two or three pages that refer to the Government and the Department entering into public service agreements whereby specific targets must be met, particularly when there is an opportunity of the branch providing assistance to other bodies. In principle, I have no objection—I am sure that my hon. Friends do not object—to the laudable aim of the chief inspector arranging for the branch to offer assistance in the United Kingdom, the European Union or elsewhere, with or without charge. 
 The omission that concerns us greatly is not that laudable aim, which we support wholeheartedly, but the omission of a public service agreement. Is that a typographical error? Has the matter not crossed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desk? The poor man has enough problems to be going on with, but it would lighten the Government's burden and the deficit they face if a public service agreement were envisaged. I am sure that the Minister will seek the opportunity to confirm that that is not a typographical error but an omission and that he will put our minds at rest about why the Government have not been minded to enter into a public service agreement. Under clause 31, we will consider the establishment of a public service agreement in connection with the police. That is a rather elaborate, lengthy clause dealing with the police services agreements that will come in in the fullness of time—I have resisted using an acronym and shall do so for the lifetime of this and any other Committee on which I serve under your astute chairmanship, Mr. Hood. 
 I have some difficulty in understanding why the Government have gone to such lengths to draft a very full clause 31 on police services agreements. Neither we nor the Liberal Democrats have a problem with a charge being made, but if the Government have gone down the path of public service agreements later in the Bill—in clause 31—I find the omission here breathtaking. Why do the Government wish to proceed with the provision of assistance to others without the discipline of a public service agreement? I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his canniness—coming from my side of border—would have liked the strictures and the discipline of a PSA here. 
 So far as we are concerned, the jury is still out on public service agreements, although we have the expert on PSAs among us, on this side of the House. If the Government are going to try to seduce us into supporting clause 31 on police service agreements later, they could equally seductively have had a public service agreement for the important matter here: allowing the rail accident and investigation branch to provide assistance against a charge.

Don Foster: I have much sympathy with the hon. Lady's remarks. The use of a public service agreement would be another way of ensuring that we could be confident that additional work carried out by the RAIB was ultimately to the benefit of its overall objectives as set out in clause 4. Given that she spoke so passionately about using that route, I must place on record slight disappointment that she and her colleagues totally condemned the alternative method. It seems to me that she has merely come up with a different means of achieving what I was seeking through my earlier two amendments. Nevertheless, we are as one on the underlying aim. The hon. Member for Uxbridge is wrong; the alliance is still alive and kicking, and long may it last.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Investigations

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
clause 6, page 3, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(9) The Rail Accident Investigation branch may not use contractors and subcontractors to assist in their investigations.'.
 We turn to the amendment with the rather interesting knowledge that we have fewer than two minutes before you will say those immortal words, ''Order, order'', Mr. Hood. I am sure that many Committee members will be fascinated to know what the amendment is all about. I suggest that Committee members—who can now access it through the wonderful facilities and marvellous information technology systems provided for all Members by the House—look at the question that I posed, at col. 781, to the Under-Secretary on 10 June 2002. I shall ask Members on both sides questions this afternoon to see how well they have understood it. 
 Better still, I suggest that Members look not only at the question that I asked but at the answer that the Under-Secretary gave. That would be enormously beneficial to them because it is the answer—

Jimmy Hood: Order, order.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.